Friday, April 20, 2007

Some argue that humans are no better than all other species, as evidenced by our murderous behavior. Nevertheless, language especially separates us from the assortment of grunting, singing and yelping animal life which we domesticate, eat, worship or cage. It has evolved over eons and assumes a top position in the hierarchy of human achievements. But when we attach more significance to words and pay less attention to the actions they represent, we abuse the notion of humanity as a higher form of animal life.

True to our western dualism , we use ancient written scriptures as guides to preaching morality , or as rationalizations for practicing immorality . We do the same with constitutions which establish the legality of our state structures. Too often we honor words to interpret what we do as being godly and lawful, while practicing deeds which are in total contradiction to the legal systems and moral codes they symbolize. The examples are too numerous for a short essay, but this concerns our language of bigotry, or what has become labeled as hate speech.

Racial slurs made by a media personality recently opened the floodgates of criticism, as well as arguments in defense of such talk as free speech. While many justifiably challenged any supposed right to slur human beings with such gross disrespect, they often missed the fact that it goes on all the time and is a money maker in the radio universe. Much of the tasteless and irreverent shock jock talk is heard by listeners as honest response to a kind of speech regulation which is often hypocritical . Rather than changing hateful realities at the core of our culture, it simply makes them less overt in speech, while convincing regulators of their own moral righteousness. This is progress in the way that addressing someone by a publicly accepted title can somehow blur the fact that he is in prison, or living in poverty, or otherwise being treated as a second class citizen.

One of the forward steps taken as a result of the civil rights movement of the sixties was when whites stopped addressing grown black men as “boy”. This disrespectful conduct was finally changed , but while this was a big move in personal healing , it didn’t change much of what actually went on in the material world. No longer addressing a man as though he were a boy did not mean that his status , in theory, made him an equal to all other men, in practice.

Using politically correct verbal forms to address people, while practicing socially incorrect behavior in the treatment of those same people , exemplifies what a holy book or constitution is often used for: the justification or rationalization of human indignity , with a legalistic or holy veneer that does nothing to stop physical inhumanity, but only uses words to make it sound less inhumane.

People who would never say the “n” word or the “f” word in public but call people niggers or faggots in private, are part of the problem . But those who would never use such language at any time are not part of the solution, as long as their language sensitivity does little or nothing to change the social realities which treat so many people as less than human. Support for correct social speech, joined with maintenance of incorrect social practice, equals hypocrisy, not democracy.

We should never use language that is insulting or disrespectful to any people , but polite habits of speech mean very little when society treats so many with a disrespect that amounts to murderous disregard. When we consign children to underfunded, physically run down schools that can’t possibly provide the education supposedly guaranteed them by our written laws, addressing them with verbal respectability masks a cruel and material disrespect. Using nasty terms like ho or bitch when addressing women is degrading , but calling someone Miss or Mrs. while forcing her to work at below minimum wages and raise children in a home with broken windows and no heat , is hardly a sign of a healthy respect for women.

While our consciousness of how hurtful talk can be has led to some progress, it has also helped create a kind of language police force armed with hate laws and moral righteousness. At the same time we have a material police force armed with the older laws and weapons which are too often used to pump bullets into an unarmed and innocent man because he looked suspiciously, criminally black. Neither such a man, nor his family or his community, are protected from ignorant bigotry by respectfully referring to him, with politically correct language, as a dead African American.

An old childhood adage retaliated to name calling by chanting ; sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never harm me. Of course derogatory names can cause deep personal pain, as can heartbreaking relationships, loneliness and depression . But physical pain hurts far more , and when we over stress the correction of language to free it of derogatory words, we sometimes forget the social pain we allow in everyday performance of even more derogatory deeds.

We don't need politically correct speech as much as we need a political actuality that fits the words we use to profess it. Our credit culture ultimately demands material actions to back up any immaterial credit language; landlords and banks will not accept endless promises to pay the rent or mortgage . Social relations amount to a verbal bill that needs to be paid in something more than additional promissory verbiage. While we act to enforce rules of decent speech, we would do well to remember another old adage; actions speak louder than words. It’s time to put those words into action.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.

This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author

Thursday, April 12, 2007

When British marines were captured by the Iranians, we were told they were in Iraqi waters, as though that was completely natural. Several thousand miles from their own country, sailing an area subject to border dispute, their captain having told British TV that they might be picking up intelligence about Iran; nothing unusual there. Especially for an arrogant former imperial power reduced to snuggling up to the USA and acting as its junior partner in arousing hatred for the western world .

Photos that showed them smiling and looking healthy, and messages they sent apologizing for being in Iranian territory were treated with suspicion. They were released after a posturing show in the diplomatic theater, where such performances make TV wrestling look honest.

Upon returning to their homeland, they were immediately transformed into a group of sobbing sufferers who claimed they were forced to smile and confess under threat of death. One of them sold her sad story for big bucks and a mini-scandal erupted after which it was ruled that none should profit from stories of their dreadful treatment at the hands of their sadistic captors. These demons seemed to have force fed some of them so they would appear heavier than they were before their capture. What monstrous fiends.

Those who have tortured and abused their own prisoners registered indignation at the treatment of these captives. And they did so without blushing, or even laughing once the cameras and mikes were turned off. This is life in the civilized west, where news is reported without bias, and truth and justice reign supreme. Sure.

The man depicted as an anti-Semitic genocidal demon was shown smiling and making jokes as his nation freed military personnel captured in their waters. The imperially self-chosen world featured the dreadful toady, Blair, making threats he couldn't possibly carry out without his U.S. bodyguards, and the even more dreadful Bush making macho noises in the background. This pair would give a bad name to cross dressing female impersonators, but they play the roles of tough hombres in the movie we are shown that supposedly represents reality.

Have any of the thousands of prisoners taken in the frantic war on terror, all found guilty without trial and very often with no evidence, ever been spoken to or photographed with the American or British leaders? Even when found innocent and set free, has there been any public gesture towards them by any leader? Yet the release of military prisoners, accompanied by handshakes and jokes from the president of the invaded country, is treated as an outrage by him, not them.

Is it any wonder that we are among the most ignorant people in the universe? When we have media presenting fairy tales as reality, and when our political leadership lives in a nightmarish dream world of demented lunacy?

A presidential candidate was photographed walking through a Baghdad market, with a small army protecting him, claiming that things were going smoothly and safely there. And he was a veteran of actual combat in Viet Nam. Well, he did his killing by bombing from the sky, so the dead bodies and rubble on the ground probably never came to his attention . This experience, and his years in a military prison along with more years in the U.S. senate, may have helped cloud his vision so as not to notice troops and helicopters creating his benign tourist pleasure. This is a candidate for the nation’s highest office. And why not? Given the murderous ding bats who run it now, he might offer an improvement.

None of this is really funny, and in fact it’s really tragic. We must deal with a reality in which we directly, if often unconsciously contribute to the ever more miserable lives of millions of people. How long can we assume that those who willingly sacrifice themselves in suicide bombings in other places, will refrain from doing so here? The tragic attack of 911 may have been beyond anyone’s imagination, save for those who performed it and the dunderheads who let it happen, and we might assume that no such airline hijacking will happen again. But a suicide driver in a car filled with explosives could inflict tremendous death and damage here, and the longer we are governed by forces operating in our name but out of our control, the more likely it is that lack of control will come home to us with a devastating vengeance.

As long as we allow rich and powerful minorities to control our media, our government, and our minds, we face a future that may rival the dreadful experience of millions the world over who suffer because we lack majority rule and tolerate minority domination.

We have called ourselves a democratic nation for much of our history, but that democracy was founded and flourished in great part by stealing the nation from its original inhabitants and building its economy with slave labor from Africa , and cheap labor from Europe, Asia and Latin America. The prosperity and abundant lifestyles enjoyed by millions here have been achieved by directly and indirectly adding to the misery and suffering experienced by hundreds of millions elsewhere. If we don’t create political and economic democracy soon, we can expect greater and more rapid environmental destruction, especially of our social organization.

Democracy is not something given to us by a benign outside force, material or spiritual. It must be created by the people, as it has been in much poorer nations, by populations with far less material wealth and creature comforts than we enjoy . How have they been able to bring about profound social change, while we still work for minimal and too often cosmetic appearances of change that only maintain the status quo?

We have no excuse. If we continue to accept this twisted farce and call it democracy, we will surely get the future it promises.And predicting that such a future will not be pleasant is an understatement.

Copyright (c) 2007 by Frank Scott. All rights reserved.

This text may be used and shared in accordance with the fair-use provisions of U.S. copyright law, and it may be archived and redistributed in electronic form, provided that the author is notified and no fee is charged for access. Archiving, redistribution, or republication of this text on other terms, in any medium, requires the consent of the author

Friday, April 6, 2007

In 1980 Barry Commoner became the Rodney Dangerfield of American politics. Running for president on a platform of public control of energy, an end to nuclear development, conversion to solar energy and conservation, large cutbacks in military spending, termination of support for repressive regimes, guaranteed full employment, stable prices for economic necessities, and citizen control of large corporations, he got no respect at all. At a campaign stop a questioner actually asked him if he was "a serious candidate or if he was just running on the issues." Commoner let the question hang in the air a few extra moments to highlight the absurdity of presidential campaigns as issueless publicity contests.

Things had not changed much nearly a quarter century later when Ted Koppel virtually ordered Dennis Kucinich out of the 2004 race on the grounds that he lacked sufficient financial clout to buy his way to the top of the pack. Koppel's views mirrored those of his paymasters: if you can't prostitute yourself to the private owners of the economy, you have no business seeking higher office. In the optic of the capitalist media, "vanity" candidates like Commoner and Kucinich only exist to "lend a little color to the campaign," not to transform American politics into substantive democracy. It is quite beside the point that a long list of so-called vanity candidates has advanced programs which promised to go a long way towards solving our problems, in contrast to the elected candidates, who have demonstrated their political superiority by ushering the human race to the brink of extinction.

As scapegoats for the consequences of our unconfronted problems progressive candidates appear to be ideal. They have no power and lack the resources to defend themselves against the onslaught of demonization launched by the well-off. Incredibly enough, the Democrats are STILL blaming Ralph Nader for their troubles, though their wholesale capitulation to reactionary policies dates back far beyond when Nader first appeared on the scene. Yes, Nader is responsible for the national security state, not Harry Truman who instituted it. Nader is responsible for the Patriot Act, not the Democrats who voted for it. Nader is responsible for Abu Ghraib, not the Democrats who refused to impeach Bush over it, or even make a campaign issue out of it. Nader is to blame for wars in Palestine, Lebanon, and Iraq, not the Democrats who swear eternal loyalty to a racist Jewish state.

Just how has democratic sentiment fared in recent years, given this assumption that only "serious candidates" have a claim on the electorate? Ronald Reagan won the 1980 elections with an underwhelming 26.6% of the potential vote, a figure based on all those who might have registered and voted, as well as those who actually did. Just four percent of voters supported Reagan out of ideological conviction, i.e., because they thought he was "a real conservative." On the other hand, support for social programs was overwhelming, especially for Social Security and Medicare, with large majorities opposing benefit cuts for the elderly, poor, handicapped, as well as in federal aid to education and in general health programs. In addition, the general public strongly favored environmental protection and regulations to protect the health and safety of consumers and workers. No matter. The mass media shamelessly pronounced the Reagan triumph a landslide victory for conservatism and the death of the New Deal.

Four years later fully half the electorate (the poorer half) saw no advantage in choosing between Reagan and Walter Mondale, while those that did turn out had the unenviable task of determining which candidate represented the greater threat to their well being, a quadrennial challenge demanding almost impossibly fine distinctions. The "issues" were whether President Reagan could operate without a Teleprompter or if Mondale was too dull to attract support. The strategy was to canvass voter prejudices and craft the catchy sound bites and bumper sticker slogans that would harvest the most votes. As usual, electable candidates were defined as viable, not compromised. One could almost hear Orwell wincing in his grave.

In 1988 Jesse Jackson developed a democratic coalition spanning the entire society - farmers, unionists, feminists, Hispanics, students, environmentalists, and 95% of blacks. Huge crowds turned out to hear him denounce wage-slashing, pension-busting, job-exporting capital for its complete lack of social conscience. They roared delighted approval when he waxed indignant at "American multinationals firing free labor at home to hire repressed labor abroad." Allegedly unwilling to support a black candidate, laid off auto workers flocked to Jackson's Rainbow Coalition, awarding him front-runner status with 55% of the Michigan primary vote. Pundits yawned and Israel-first fanatics finished him off: photos of Jackson with Yasir Arafat circulated widely in the press; old charges of anti-Semitism were endlessly rehashed; a panicked Democratic Party hierarchy launched an Anybody-But-Jackson campaign. The threat of popular rule dethroning "democracy" was no more.

Jackson, though running within an officially sanctioned party, had been treated as a vanity candidate. His broad-based coalition was dismissed for allegedly being composed of "special interests," in contrast to the microscopic minority that owned the private economy and controlled the political system, which supposedly represented the general interest. Even Orwell could have been forgiven for throwing in the towel at this point.

In 1992 Ross Perot split the reactionary vote - without, let us note, being charged with egomania and other allegedly Naderesque defects - which delivered Bill Clinton to the White House. Clinton carried on the Reagan "revolution," slashing social programs, eliminating welfare, dismantling the post-WWII capital-labor accord, embracing NAFTA while gutting the side agreements protecting workers and the environment that he had promised to enforce, funneling taxes towards police, prisons, and war, strangling civil liberties with the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, and intervening militarily in Somalia, Sudan, Afghanistan, Haiti, Yugoslavia, and Iraq. Democrats, who have raised political obtuseness to an art form, now regard this period as The Good Old Days.

In 2000 half the electorate sat the contest out again, as per tradition in a country without a labor party or socialist voice in the mass media, and voters suffered the equivalent of a nervous breakdown attempting to discern a vote-worthy difference between capitalist extremists Al Gore and George W. Bush. No issues resonated with any large body of voters, and, in fact, they were unable to even perceive the candidates' stances due to all the campaign hoopla. One clear perception did emerge, however: over 60% of regular voters found American politics "generally pretty disgusting." It's hard to quarrel with that.

Four years later conditions for a lopsided Democratic victory were ideal: George W. Bush had bogged the country down in a criminal and hopeless war, his tax cuts for the rich had exacerbated widespread and growing economic insecurities, and the U.S. future appeared relentlessly bleak. But John Kerry rose to the challenge, ignoring overwhelming anti-war sentiment within his party in favor of pathetic slogans about Bush having "outsourced" the job of mass murder from Afghanistan to Iraq. As though slaughtering Afghans were nobler than slaughtering Iraqis. Bush remained for a second term and Kerry faded into the political obscurity he so richly deserves.

No doubt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are going to overturn this dismal pattern and deliver peace and justice for all. But it seems a safer bet to raise a cheer for vanity candidates instead, the last best hope for democracy amidst a crumbling empire.

The two best financed presidential candidates of the democratic wing of our ruling party have been battling over money, and support from two of America’s most important minority groups: Blacks and Jews. Those reduced to desperation by a regime which may be the worst in American history are excited by this advertised-as-charismatic pair.

Having treated the constitution as if it were a non-binding resolution, while further blemishing an already badly pockmarked American image , the regime seems anxious to be replaced. As it happens, its term will conveniently be up just as a new regime takes over. So the race for the real stuff of our democracy has been under way since long before any vote will be electronically distorted, stolen, miscounted or even cast.

The advertised-as-dynamic duo have already raised fifty million dollars between them, and we’re still a year and a half from any vote.

Our elections usually find the black vote being turned out in support of candidates financed by Jewish money, so it may not be long before the said-to-be-exciting pair form a ticket. They've both pledged allegiance to Israel before Jewish groups, while joining in a lusty chorus of We Shall Overcome before black groups. Along with Israel’s supporters in and out of government, many old civil rights figures have been swept up in this campaign circus, supporting one of the two front running money gatherers, or hedging their bets and hoping to be power brokers at some later date. They can see being courted for endorsements as great progress between the ugly racist past and the cosmetically improved racial present . Especially for themselves, since most of them have achieved political and financial success far beyond most Americans, let alone most black Americans. But as long as the said-to-be-progressive dollar dynamos occasionally quote Martin Luther King or murmur something about the plight of New Orleans survivors , those expressions of alleged race consciousness seem enough to get the old guard to smile with favor on them, separately or together.

The senator from New York is regarded as a soul sister by many women, especially if their souls were shaped by the Motown experience they had while at college. She is the wife of a former tenant at the white house who was called our first black president, in a hysteric burst of euphoric praise from an otherwise sensible person, over some appointments of upper class blacks to his administration . He later opened an office in the gentrified and newly whitened atmosphere of 125th street in New York. This gives the couple resonance among middle and upper income blacks for whom affirmative action has meant more money, better neighborhoods and being labeled African Americans more often than black. Blacks live in the projects, ghettos and prisons of America; African Americans are more suburban, go to college and may aspire to positions in government and industry, mostly token but occasionally very well paying.

The senator from Illinois is truly African American in that his father is an African, and his mother is a white American, and they have money . This helps to not only make his looks but his upper class speech patterns more palatable to whites . Especially dunderheads who still think an articulate black must be alien to the race. While women generally consider the New Yorker one of their own, even if her financial class is beyond theirs, many black Americans seem not yet convinced that the Illinois senator is necessarily one of them. In fact, his economic background is so far above that of the average white American that it is the stuff of comedy for him, or for that matter her , to be treated as a voice of and for the great majority, though this is the usual situation with political leadership in America. Neither of them live near, dine among, or consort with - except for photo ops during campaigns - most of the people who are passionately supporting them as if they were winners on American Idol. Well, maybe not that passionately.

Another former senator advertised as the populist in this mix has also raised millions of dollars. And he may gain support from gays, having been called the “f” word by a political anorexic with a warped sense of humor. Not the often used if unspeakable in public four letter one, but the often used though equally unspeakable in public six letter one. The gay vote is far less numerically important than the black vote, but gays can produce dollars on a per capita basis that rivals the Jewish bloc. And genuine sympathy for his cancer stricken wife may help create more support for his presidential bankbook. The issue free battle over how many dollars you can get to buy votes isn't over yet. He’s got quite a few , but the duo have far more. Isn't democracy wonderful?

There are several other job seekers collecting funds which will be wasted between now and November 2008, but the lowest on the dollar gathering chart may be the only one who actually represents a majority of american working people, no matter which identity group or ethnic minority they have been herded into believing is their essence as human beings.

Dennis Kucinich attempts speaking truth to power, but power will do its best, and sadly succeed with the consent of its powerless, to muffle his message. It is relatively simple: get out of Iraq, create a peaceful world and a nation within it that provides health care for all its people without the use of private insurance. These and other planks in his platform will remain unknown to most citizens, and the advertised-to-themselves as liberal and progressive sector will support him only in small numbers. This is because of their habitual practice of crackpot realism which says: for the good of the nation, don't vote for what you supposedly stand for, and in fact vote against it.

Since the a combination of nonvoters and those who do select from their master’s choices will have little to do with actually picking the next representative of great wealth, corporate capital and Israel in the white house, Americans may soon notice that and react in healthy anger by acting in their own best collective interests. But that can only happen once there is rejection of minority democracy by dollars, and a demand for majority democracy by votes.

In the short term, we should expect the worst. But in the long term, we should hope - and work for - the best.